Originally posted by pcaspianEh? You seem to have mis-interpreted.... I was actualy saying that I don't think having Gay parents was likely to increase bullying... Kids will get bullied whatever.... Thats kids for ya...
Originally posted by Simonm
[b]I was really only trying to cover the issue of bullying there...
I would agree that an absent parent can cause great harm but I've not seen any evidence that 2 same-sex parents can't fill all the role models a kid needs.
Well yes, clearly having 2 gay parents would greatly increase bullying. I certainly d ...[text shortened]... as far as to say that gay parenting would have a greater benefit than single parenting.
[/b]
We seem to agree that a gay couple can provide a good home though... I have to confess to being a litle confused, your tone seems to have changed....
Originally posted by Simonm
Eh? You seem to have mis-interpreted.... I was actualy saying that I don't think having Gay parents was likely to increase bullying... Kids will get bullied whatever.... Thats kids for ya...
Ok well we really disagree then. I think children are freaking evil sometimes. Having a pair of gay parents would be excessively difficult with regards to bullying.
We seem to agree that a gay couple can provide a good home though... I have to confess to being a litle confused, your tone seems to have changed....
It depends entirely on one's view really.
Should 2 gay parents adopt a child in Sudan forinstance and raise it in a neutral fashion , allowing it to make up its own mind regarding religion, homosexuality, Lisa Manelli, and a whole range of other issue, clearly the child will be better off that not being adopted.
If however you see homosexual and heterosexual relationships as equal, clearly you would not care whether the child ended up being gay as a result of their upbringing. For me to deprive a person through social intervention from being able to find the oppositve sex attractive and thus having a biological family, is pure evil. Then again, I believe only the vast minority of gay parents would do such a thing.
My view regarding adoption is one where the optimum parents should be found for a child. This excludes single parents and homosexual couples. I place great value on a mother and father figure (as mentioned before) as well as a stable environment.
Whilst you can argue that gay parents > no parents at all, that is not really a valid argument. Afterall you could argue that an often drunk parent is also greater than no parent at all, but should we give such a person the rights to adopt a child purely because the child will be better off with than without that person ?
I have no doubdt that a man is not as good at being a mother than a woman is , or that a woman is not as good at being a father than a man is. Depriving a child of the opportunity of having both father and mother figures should not really be advocated.
Ok well we really disagree then. I think children are freaking evil sometimes. Having a pair of gay parents would be excessively difficult with regards to bullying.
I know some one who was beaten up at school cos he had long hair.
I know some one who was abused every day by many people because he was cos he was Shy
I know some one spent 6 years of school with no friends (in school) because some one found out liked playing chess..... (not me oddly... People knew I played chess but I was picked on for entirely different reasons!...like i said it's all just an excuse and they don't need much of one)
Having Gay parents is not gonna matter squat. People who bully will take any excuse....
My view regarding adoption is one where the optimum parents should be found for a child. This excludes single parents and homosexual couples. I place great value on a mother and father figure (as mentioned before) as well as a stable environment.
....
I have no doubdt that a man is not as good at being a mother than a woman is , or that a woman is not as good at being a father than a man is. Depriving a child of the opportunity of having both father and mother figures should not really be advocated.
I agree that in a hetrosexual family the mother and father often provide different and importans roles (in terms of being a role model) but I don't neccisarily think that a gay couple can not between them give the the same guidance and support.
Originally posted by CribsIt's a pretty clear demographic that the older you are, the less likely you are to be tolerant of homosexuality, and vice versa. Given that, we can conclude most 30 year old homosexuals (who were almost certainly born of heterosexual parents) likely learned very little about homosexuality from their parents. Many of those parents probably have either suppressed or explicit bigottry towards homosexuality. As a result, I can't imagine that two men or two women raising a child would give them any "learned behaviors" except tolerance. The only circumstance is if those two men or two women taught them intolerance of heterosexuality. My observation and experience tells me that this is a very rare case; while most homosexuals aren't anti-homosexual, I've met precious few who are anti-heterosexual either.
Are you of the belief that homosexuality is innate from birth,
or a learned behavior, or simply a rational choice?
Nemesio
Originally posted by pcaspianJust so I'm clear, by social intervention, do you mean trying to impose gayness?
If however you see homosexual and heterosexual relationships as equal, clearly you would not care whether the child ended up being gay as a result of their upbringing. For me to deprive a person through social intervention from being able to find the oppositve sex attractive and thus having a biological family, is pure evil. Then again, I believe only the vast minority of gay parents would do such a thing.
How do you explain all of the 30-60 year old homosexuals that came out of perfectly fine, non-abusive heterosexual homes? Did those parents impose gayness? Of course not.
Another question: Are you saying that a biological family is in some way superior to a non-biological family? I mean, you write about denying the possibility of having a biological family is pure evil.
Can a straight woman have a biological child with a sterile partner? Yes. Easily.
Can a lesbian woman have a biological child? Yes. Easily.
Is one more likely to love their bio-child more than the other? No.
Can a straight man have a biological child with a barren partner? Yes, albeit a bit trickier.
Can a gay man have a biological child? Yes. The same way.
Is one more likely to love their bio-child more than the other? No.
Can a (straight) married couple adopt a child? Yes.
Can a single (straight) parent adopt a child? Yes. No problem.
In either of these situations, will the parents in question love that adopted child as much as a biological child? Yes. Absolutely.
Here's the question: Why would a loving committed homosexual union (marriage) be any less likely to raise a child by adoption lovingly? Why would any of them, who very likely experienced all manner of confusion and strain with family and friend try to impose something on them that wasn't the case.
Are you offended by the many, many heterosexual parents who caused all manner of strife and emotional harm to their own biological children when those children told them that they were gay? Isn't that the pure evil social intervention here?
Nemesio
Originally posted by usmc7257I think this has been researched (research done on lesbian couples with children) and the results were negative; there is no correlation between having homosexual parents and becoming homosexual yourself.
here is a little twist on it. do you think that if a homosexual couple adopted a kid right after childbirth, the child would be more likely to become a homosexual?
I'll try to find the research papers for y'all.
Originally posted by shavixmir
I think this has been researched (research done on lesbian couples with children) and the results were negative; there is no correlation between having homosexual parents and becoming homosexual yourself.
I'll try to find the research papers for y'all.
Do better research.
Originally posted by Simonm
I know some one who was beaten up at school cos he had long hair.
I know some one who was abused every day by many people because he was cos he was Shy
I know some one spent 6 years of school with no friends (in school) because some one found out liked playing chess..... (not me oddly... People knew I played chess but I was picked on for entirely different reasons!...like i said it's all just an excuse and they don't need much of one)
Having Gay parents is not gonna matter squat. People who bully will take any excuse....
Having gay parents is pretty much up there with being auto targeted by bullies. Ofcourse bullies can find a reason to beat you up, thats not the point. With gay parents you will not only be bullied by bullies, but even ostricised by other children.
Lets agree to disagree I suppose.
I agree that in a hetrosexual family the mother and father often provide different and importans roles (in terms of being a role model) but I don't neccisarily think that a gay couple can not between them give the the same guidance and support.
Support yes, guidance no. If you really believe your mother could be just as good a father as your father was, well, can't really relate much to that then.
Originally posted by nemesio
Just so I'm clear, by social intervention, do you mean trying to impose gayness?
How do you explain all of the 30-60 year old homosexuals that came out of perfectly fine, non-abusive heterosexual homes? Did those parents impose gayness? Of course not.
I don't claim that homosexuality is neccesaryly caused by immediate families. There could be many social factors involved. Bording school in the early 20th century (and before that), Spartan army, just to name a couple. My view is that effemininity and social conditioning based on effemininity in boys play a great role.
Another question: Are you saying that a biological family is in some way superior to a non-biological family? I mean, you write about denying the possibility of having a biological family is pure evil.
Denying a person the ability to conceive a child naturally through purposefull social conditioning is evil yes. Ask you tryign to suggest people do not place great value on beign able to produce offspring that is a mixture of their and their partners genetics ?
Can a straight woman have a biological child with a sterile partner? Yes. Easily.
Can a lesbian woman have a biological child? Yes. Easily.
Is one more likely to love their bio-child more than the other? No.
Wow, you really are aren't you ?
Ok so, why do you think it is so important for couples to try and artificially inseminate the woman with the man's weakened semen when another man's working semen will easily do the job ?
Dude, how old are you ? Do you have children of your own ?
Can a straight man have a biological child with a barren partner? Yes, albeit a bit trickier...
Ok, so why exactly are infertile couples so desperate to have children of their own... if as you claim , there is no greater value associated with having a child of your own, than an adopted child
Think this through before you answer.
Here's the question: Why would a loving committed homosexual union (marriage) be any less likely to raise a child by adoption lovingly? Why would any of them, who very likely experienced all manner of confusion and strain with family and friend try to impose something on them that wasn't the case.
Here's a question. Why are homosexual couples always 'loving'. Seems even straight couples are never as 'loving, gentle , caring' as homosexual couples ?
Question 2. Why not ? Do they believe there is anything wrong with homosexuality, no ? Do they believe that a person does not have a choice whether they want to be homosexual/heterosexual ? What about bisexuality ? What makes you believe a person is born gay or born straight ?
Are you offended by the many, many heterosexual parents who caused all manner of strife and emotional harm to their own biological children when those children told them that they were gay? Isn't that the pure evil social intervention here?
Not really. I can't imagine wishing a homosexual life on anyone. The entire "push" for discovering the 'gay gene' is to enable gay men the opportunity to switch their sexual preference to the opposite sex (this actually coming from a gay professor doing research on it). Whilst I don't agree with forcing your child to deny their sexual preference, I completely understand that this can indeed be simply because parents want the best for their children. As many will confess, sexual preference can often be confusing during puberty. Heck, grow up in a boys school with boys calling eachother 'fags' all the time and all 12 year olds claiming to have had sex many times, sooner or later you start to question your own sexuality if (unlike other boys) you don't feel a need to masterbate at every picture of a pair of breasts!
later
Where to begin...
Originally posted by pcaspian
My view is that effemininity and social conditioning based on effemininity in boys play a great role [in the expression of homosexuality].
I don't know about you, but I know effeminate straight people and butch gay people. My point about the 30-60 crowd is, with the clearly defined gender roles that most of the parents of this group had, it's hard to imagine that all of them had some "social conditioning" (a feminine uncle?) that would "make them gay." It's a preposterous notion.
Originally posted by pcaspian
Denying a person the ability to conceive a child naturally through purposefull social conditioning is evil yes. Ask you tryign to suggest people do not place great value on beign able to produce offspring that is a mixture of their and their partners genetics ?
You did not read what I wrote. Gay people can have biological children. Gay people DO have biological children. No one is being DENIED anything. A gay man (Joe) who is a close friend of mine has a biological son (who, I might add, is straight). Women, obviously, have an easier time of it.
I know two gay men (Jack and Jim) who are in a committed relationship (in lieu of the marriage not afforded to them) and have adopted a son. Joe, and Jack and Jim love their respective sons unequivocably.
Yes, people place value on having biological children, but the presumption that gay people can't have biological children is totally false. And, especially, your suggestion that because some people (gay or not) CHOOSE not to have or cannot have biological children somehow makes them less valuable is appalling. Any person, gay, straight, male, female, assuming their plumbing is in order, can have a biological child. No one is being denied anything.
Originally posted by pcaspian
Ok so, why do you think it is so important for couples to try and artificially inseminate the woman with the man's weakened semen when another man's working semen will easily do the job ?...Ok, so why exactly are infertile couples so desperate to have children of their own...
Why is it important to my dog that he hump my leg? Because it's a natural (that is biological) reaction. It's natural to be polygomous and spread your seed far and wide. It's natural to want to hit your neighbor over the head because he has something you want.
However, in an effort to separate ourselves from the other animals, many natural tendencies have been transcended (like the ones above). Others have been integrated subtly. For example, 10000 years ago, the guy with the biggest spear and the most luxurious headdress was chief. He got all the women, he made all the decisions. Now, it's the guy with the biggest SUV and nicest Audio System. Do you think Donald Trump uses all the stuff he has? Cmon.
I think people who spend tens of thousands of dollars trying to have a biological child when there are literally 100000s of children just begging to be adopted are reacting to the natural urges in their body. Like many other natural urges, this urge's priority should be substantially downgraded, and compassion for suffering children should be upgraded.
Originally posted by pcaspian
Dude, how old are you ? Do you have children of your own ?
I don't like the tone with which this question was asked, and so, I'll reply "NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS."
Originally posted by pcaspian
Here's a question. Why are homosexual couples always 'loving'. Seems even straight couples are never as 'loving, gentle , caring' as homosexual couples ?
The act of raising this question implies that I suggested that all homosexual couples are loving, and perhaps that straight ones aren't. I do not appreciate being misrepresented. I wrote "Why would a loving committed homosexual union..." I am setting up a given. Only loving couples should be able to adopt, irrespective of their gender, and are equally fit for giving their child a loving home. Unloving couples, irrespective of gender, are equally unfit. Who would argue for an unfit couple? I never said or suggested that homosexual unions inherently make for being more fit parents than straight ones.
Having addressed directly a great number of your points, I'll clarify and ask my own single question which has yet gone unanswered:
Why would a loving committed union/marriage be any less likely to raise a child by adoption lovingly than by having their own biological child (irrespective of orientation)? Why would a loving homosexual couple be less likely to care for their child (either adopted or biological) than a loving heterosexual couple, given that the former very likely experienced all manner of confusion and strain by family and friend trying to impose something on them that wasn't the case?
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesio
I don't know about you, but I know effeminate straight people and butch gay people. My point about the 30-60 crowd is, with the clearly defined gender roles that most of the parents of this group had, it's hard to imagine that all of them had some "social conditioning" (a feminine uncle?) that would "make them gay." It's a preposterous notion.
You truely believe social influence plays no part in ones sexual orientation ? If so, address homosexuality in the Spartan army and homosexuality in 20th Centruy boarding schools.
You did not read what I wrote. Gay people can have biological children. Gay people DO have biological children. No one is being DENIED anything. A gay man (Joe) who is a close friend of mine has a biological son (who, I might add, is straight). Women, obviously, have an easier time of it.
Turn off your emotional button and think.
Gay - Couples - Cant - Have - Biological - Children.
Again Gay Couples
I know two gay men (Jack and Jim) who are in a committed relationship (in lieu of the marriage not afforded to them) and have adopted a son. Joe, and Jack and Jim love their respective sons unequivocably.
That is completely besides the point. No-one claims that couples cannot gain benefits from adopting children, OR that biological children will be loved more than adopted children (although it can be the case).
The argument I put forward is that gay couples are 'unable' to conceive children biologically. Gay COUPLES.
If you are proposing that there is no greater value in couples being able to conceive biologically, I'd say you are simply ignorant in this matter.
Yes, people place value on having biological children, but the presumption that gay people can't have biological children is totally false.
There is no such presumption. Gay Couples.
And, especially, your suggestion that because some people (gay or not) CHOOSE not to have or cannot have biological children somehow makes them less valuable is appalling.
Ask yourself. Does PCaspian really care about whether I find his views appalling ? Spend some time on that.
You are reading too much into what I have to say. You're letting your emotions get the better of you.
My statement is pure and simple. A homosexual relationship, amongst other things, will never be equivalent to a fertile heterosexual relationship where both couples wish to have children of their own (all other factors being ignored).
The GIFT of being able to experience pregnancy, knowing it is YOUR child inside another woman, knowing this human being is a perfect mixture between two human beings is indeed an emensely valuable thing. Any person denying someone (through actions of their own )the chance to experience this event, is committing a great evil.
I think people who spend tens of thousands of dollars trying to have a biological child when there are literally 100000s of children just begging to be adopted are reacting to the natural urges in their body. Like many other natural urges, this urge's priority should be substantially downgraded, and compassion for suffering children should be upgraded.
You mean the biological urge that has provided such a substantial evolutionary benefit, knitted families so close together ? While we're at it, perhaps we can rid ourselves of the needless emotion of love too ?
I don't like the tone with which this question was asked, and so, I'll reply "NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS."
I'm quite surprised at your lack of insight into many key areas of adulthood and child rearing. As such I can only assume you to be underage, which ofcourse does in no way imply a lesser intellect, merely a lack of knowledge regarding the problems of infertility. Many couples suffer from this, and as they will all admit, they would love to have a child with their partners.
The act of raising this question implies that I suggested that all homosexual couples are loving, and perhaps that straight ones aren't. I do not appreciate being misrepresented.
Not at all, it was simply a question out of interest. See in most debates such as this one, homosexual couples in all hypothetical examples are always loving, never promiscious, whereas heterosexual couples are often 'drunkards, or abusive'. Just a trend I've noticed. As you have started with the always 'loving' homosexual couple, I'm merely curios as to why you would have to stupulate that a homosexual couple are loving, when the 'loving' part would be pretty irrelavent really in a debate no ? I mean, would your view change if you could not prove a couples loving, or would forinstance we first have to prove the coulple as 'loving' before we could continue with the analogy.
anyway, cheers